IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment clarified the onus of proving cruelty in a proceeding for dissolution of marriage and emphasized the need for complete and corroborative evidence. It also provided an interpretation of 'cruelty' under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

Harish Tandon, J.

1. The aforesaid two appeals are at the behest of the wife/appellant challenging the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in a proceeding for the dissolution of marriage having granted and the application for restitution of conjugal rights having dismissed under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Prior to the application for restitution of conjugal right the husband/respondent filed an application under Section 13 (1) (a) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging that the wife has perpetrated cruelty upon him and, therefore, the marriage between them to be dissolved. The facts pleaded in the application for dissolution of marriage by the respondent herein have been succinctly narrated by the learned Judge in the Trial Court which we feel to adumbrate in our own way in the following:

(i) The marriage between the parties were solemnised on 7th March, 2011 as per the Hindu ritual and rights at Chunnabhati, District- Howrah. The marriage was duly consummated as the parties herein resided together in the house of the brother of the respondent at Premises No. 401, Hossainpur, P.S.- Tiljala, Kolkata- 700107 but no issue is born from the said wedlock.

(ii) The appellant wife since after the solemnisation of the marriage were treating the respondent/husband with great hardness and perpetuated cruelty by abusing in the corset and using insulting languages and sometimes beats him.

(iii) The mother of the respondent husband was hospitalised prior to the marriage for the treatment of fracture of her right hand on 25.2.2011 but the appellant/wife did not tolerate the same and used filthy languages.

(iv) The appellant/respondent suffers from a mental illness or incomplete development of mind and is highly aggressive or seriously irresponsible in her conduct and needed a medical treatment.

(v) On 8.7.2011 due to the torture of the appellant/wife, the respondent/husband fell down from the staircase and suffered deep cut injury and was hospitalised at Rubi General Hospital on 8.7.2011.

(vi) A general diary was lodged with the concerned police station on 30th August, 2011 when the respondent/husband took his mother to hospital for her medical check up and subjected to abusive languages from the appellant/wife who also beat his mother and, thereafter, left the matrimonial home.

(vii) Even on 27th September, 2011, 5th November, 2011 the Respondent/husband was beaten by the appellant/wife and hurled the abusive languages which continued day by day subsequently.

(viii) On 7th November, 2011 the respondent/husband was insulted by the appellant/wife with the filthy languages for which a general diary was lodged with the concerned police station.

(ix) Subsequently on 13.11.2011, the respondent/husband was further abused with filthy languages and beaten by weapons and the respondent/husband and his mother lodged a general diary with the police station.

(x) The appellant/wife tried to burn the mother of the respondent/husband on 13.12.11 for which the general diary was lodged with the concerned police station. The respondent/husband left the house on 01.06.12 intimating the police station and is residing separately from the appellant/wife since then.

3. The wife in the written statement denied all such allegations and made a counter allegation that the appellant/wife was always treated with the cruelty in the hands of the mother of petitioner who used to call her as “Baja”. It is further stated that in order to eradicate such sense she was taken to the Rubi General Hospital and after the check up it was found that the appellant/respondent is capable of procreating the child but the respondent/husband did not undergo with the medical examination with regard to his capacity to give birth to a child. The wife took further stand that despite the same she wanted to live with the husband who has disassociated his company voluntarily without any reasons and rhymes.

4. The pleadings in the application for restitution of conjugal rights and the defence ta